Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adequacy and thoroughness of the Professional Standards investigation into police conduct.

• Lawfulness of police entry, arrest, and use of force during the incident involving Mr. Ferraro.

• Sufficiency of evidence supporting the Chief’s and Director’s findings regarding misconduct allegations.

• Scope of the Director’s authority to address complaints about the investigator’s conduct.

• Reasonableness of the Director’s review and decision under administrative law principles.

• Appropriateness of police conduct, including use of language and response to Mr. Ferraro’s requests.

Facts of the case

On June 30, 2023, Guelph Police responded to a 911 call reporting that Riley Ferraro had allegedly assaulted a witness with a chair and threatened him with a knife. The Tactics and Rescue Unit entered the house with the owner’s consent, and a crisis negotiator attempted to communicate with Mr. Ferraro for about an hour. When negotiations stalled and Mr. Ferraro ceased communication, officers breached his bedroom door. After Mr. Ferraro did not comply with commands, a taser was deployed, and he was arrested for assault with a weapon and uttering threats. He was cautioned, informed of his rights, and transported to the hospital, but was not given his socks and glasses as requested.

The complaints and investigation

Mr. Ferraro filed a misconduct complaint with the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) on January 31, 2024, alleging unlawful arrest, excessive force, use of foul language, and retaliation for his intent to file a complaint. LECA referred the matter to the Guelph Police Service Professional Standards Bureau. The assigned investigator conducted interviews, reviewed body-worn camera footage, civilian statements, medical reports, and other evidence. The investigation concluded that the officers acted lawfully, the use of force was justified, and there was no evidence of retaliation or unlawful conduct. The use of profanity by one officer was deemed inappropriate but not discreditable, warranting only an informal reprimand.

The Chief’s and Director’s decisions

On May 2, 2024, the Chief of Police accepted the investigator’s findings, determining that the misconduct allegations were unsubstantiated. Mr. Ferraro requested a review by the LECA Director under section 71 of the Police Services Act. The Director reviewed the investigation, evidence, and Mr. Ferraro’s submissions, confirming that the investigation was adequate and the Chief’s findings were supported by the available evidence. The Director also clarified that complaints about the investigator’s conduct were outside the review’s scope and would require a separate complaint.

Judicial review and legal analysis

Mr. Ferraro sought judicial review of the Director’s decision, reiterating his allegations and seeking criminal charges against the officers. The Divisional Court applied the standard of reasonableness, as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and found that the Director’s decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and justified by the evidence. The Court held that neither the Director nor the Court had authority to order criminal charges. The Court also found the investigation and review process to be fair and comprehensive, with all relevant complaints addressed and the legal framework properly applied.

Outcome and ruling

The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Ferraro’s application for judicial review, upholding the Director’s confirmation of the Chief’s decision that the allegations of police misconduct were unsubstantiated. No costs were awarded, as the respondent did not seek them. The successful party in this matter was the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, and no monetary award was ordered in this case.